Obama Abandoned by Young Voters

[Dokusuke]

Before you read this, I ask you that you maintain a calm disposition and remain open-minded to the end.

Looking back at the election of 2008, the Obama Campaign mobilized youth voters to vote. Meaning that more 18 to 25 year olds were out at the ballots, electing either John McCain or Barack Obama for president. The message was clear: America wanted change, and they saw it in Obama. Foremost, youths displayed their voice as American voters by creating the second highest youth voter turnout since the 1972 elections (Morgenstern (http://thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections)).

The youth voter turnouts have been the lowest, in both presidential and congressional elections, compared to older aged demographics. Young voters made up 13 percent of the citizens eligible to vote in 1998. Out of these eligible, 44 percent were registered to vote, but only 18.3 percent actually voted (McDougal (http://journalism.indiana.edu/archive/gallery/j201spring04/junnarkar/tmcdouga.htm))

Youth voters have a voice, but why do we not use it? Having gone through struggles of ratifying the 26th Amendment (it lowered the voting age from 21 to 18), why are there no youth voters out at the ballots eagerly electing this Democrat or that Republican for office? (Eisher Taking Back the Vote)

This creates a major problem for America. America experiences the ‘un-becoming’ of democracy by losing the voices and opinions of its youth voters, representing the older, probably conservative idealists, of the population. President Obama faces then the big problem of Congress, as seen from the results of the recent midterms.

Republicans won the House, and the Democrats won the Senate. In my opinion, it is the lack of youth voters that has caused this catastrophe. America faces another Clinton situation, and we all know how that had turned out. And why is Congress like this? It is because youth voters failed to put some time to simply bubble a scantron-like ballot and put it into a box.

Back in 2008, American youths wanted change from Bush and his government. 2010, the situation has not changed, but now Americans feel the same animosity they had felt toward Bush now on Obama. The one underlying reason is change has not happened in the past two years.

By goodness, what can you ask of a single man? The problems of America— the failing economy, the rising unemployment, the increasing poverty, the diminishing good of the nation—have been forming for the past ten plus odd years. How can we expect one man—like Obama, Bush, Clinton, any man— or woman to fix all that in four years, let alone in two years?

As Americans, we tend to neglect the obstacles that the President faces. As Americans, we tend to neglect the process in which politics functions. He has to go through multiple persons/groups/steps in order to enact something. Unlike what Nixon had believed, the President does have limits when it comes to legislation. Congress controls legislation, and guess what, President Obama will now have a harder time to pass anything through because Republicans have gained control of the House (Edwards III Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy).

With the House in the hands of the Republicans, there will always clashing in legislation. President Obama v. Congress. Granted it has been always be that, but nothing will be done. Political parties are too concerned with accomplishing their own political agendas that they will neglect the problems/issues of the people and America.

And all this trouble from what? All because young American voters decided not to vote during the midterm elections or, in general, any elections. I will say now, a few months shy of voting age that I will vote for the rest of my life. The election of 2012 will be the year the young voters have to make a come back—for the better health of America, for the underlying values of democracy.

This is my opinion. If you do not like it, you do not and please tell your side/opinion. If you do, then thank you. But please do state whatever is on your mind. American youths can no longer neglect their civic duties as voters.

[virus003]

I didn't know young voters HAD to vote.

Young voters don't vote because they don't know what the consequences of who they're voting for is.

Besides, Obama isn't the smartest man in the ****ing planet, it's not the populations fault we can't have a decent president.


I now say we impeach.

We need a republican president, of course not one like that supreme dumbass Bush.

[bmah]

I'm fairly sure many young voters don't vote because of what's known as voter apathy. A lot of the younger demographic is uninformed, despite attempts by politicians to bring out their views to the public. You see a lot of ridiculous ads in campaigns, but to be informed, one has to do a bit more research into the respective delegate they're interested in. Quite often, when asked, younger people simply respond by saying they have other priorities (e.g. I'd rather watch football than politics), they don't care/not interested, etc. Although it's completely sensible to be informed of these things, since they affect the economy and our own lives, people often are more interested in the short-term and don't spend enough time predicting potentially long-term effects. As a result, the poll results will indeed tend to represent the senior population who will more likely vote and are more stubborn in their opinion (an opinion of which is influenced by their past experiences decades ago - not necessarily representing the status quo of today).

[DossarLX ODI]

I'm fairly sure many young voters don't vote because of what's known as voter apathy. A lot of the younger demographic is uninformed, despite attempts by politicians to bring out their views to the public. You see a lot of ridiculous ads in campaigns, but to be informed, one has to do a bit more research into the respective delegate they're interested in.

I agree with voter apathy/insecurity. The youth has been through the education system which stigmatizes mistakes and discourages taking risks (saying something that may be "wrong"), so they don't want to be blamed for whatever happens with the person they elect.

Also, the part I underlined and bolded - that is a huge problem! The most annoying crap there can be in research is when there's a huge wall of text when you're just trying to look for something specific. I'm very sure the youth does not care about looking through a huge mass of writing to find a few things about the person.

[Izzy]

I still think school being my priority right now is more helpful for my future then who gets elected. I'll worry about such things once I have some kind of job.

[Vendetta21]

Lambasting the president for the current state of things is a sign that you are unaware of how the political system works and politics probably just isn't your thing.

[Vendetta21]

Also considering voting your lynchpin of political power in this country is about as dumb as a bag of rocks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter:_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

[MayneWithoutModem]

Also considering voting your lynchpin of political power in this country is about as dumb as a bag of rocks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter:_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

fact: it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of not voting at all

people need to do some minimal research about the candidates and choose the ones that they agree with the most. young people saying "oh my vote doesn't matter" while baby boomers vote in droves leads to the election of idiots.

[Vendetta21]

True, but my point was about considering your vote as your source of political power. It isn't.

Your political power is increased tenfold if not more when you write to your congressmen. Or even just earnestly trying to support a cause. Or volunteering a bit of your time to an organization that does things you agree with.

[devonin]

By midterm elections, the party NOT in power is angrier, and thus more active. EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT for basically the past 150 years has lost some ground at midterm elections. They don't always lose control of the house or the senate, but during a Republican midterm, more democrats vote, and during a democratic midterm, more republicans vote.

This is neither serious, nor remarkable.

[Dokusuke]

Lambasting the president for the current state of things is a sign that you are unaware of how the political system works and politics probably just isn't your thing.

I'm sorry if you believe that I am reprimanding the president. I tried to get to the point that young voters are not voting and how it results in many problems of misrepresentaion in America. Moreover, I believe that as Americans we have to look at the presidency holistically.

As President, Obama cannot simple say, "I want this Health Care Bill to be executed in the nation, and do it as soon as possible." Obama, first, has to go through Congress, both houses, in order to get anything done. The House and Senate will have their verisons of the bill and go through multiple editings. Eventually, the House and Senate will compromise.

This is where voters come in. As a result of the midterms, we have a divided government. We will see constant spilts in bills/legislation for the next two years. Compromises always will be made. I just believe that voters should be more conscious that their vote counts in some way if not in the short terms, but in the long terms effects towards the US.

And I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding. I reiterate that I was not lambasting the president, simply just pointing out how Americans tend to forget that it is one man trying to enforce/reform/fix the problems of the nation and that this one man has to go through an obstacle of people (Congress) before getting anything done.

P.S And you are correct. Politics is not a subject of mine. I'm currently learning about the American government in class as well as other components of the institution. Nonetheless, I want to express my opinions.

True, but my point was about considering your vote as your source of political power. It isn't.

Your political power is increased tenfold if not more when you write to your congressmen. Or even just earnestly trying to support a cause. Or volunteering a bit of your time to an organization that does things you agree with.

I agree in that engaging yourself civically, you will have a better chance of forming your political identity as well as your role as a American citizen. However, youths have to be reminded that their vote counts in order to mobilize them. As seen in the grassroots campaigns in 2008, youths had to be told that they had some type of power in their vote and should make that vote.

I agree with voter apathy/insecurity. The youth has been through the education system which stigmatizes mistakes and discourages taking risks (saying something that may be "wrong"), so they don't want to be blamed for whatever happens with the person they elect.

Also, the part I underlined and bolded - that is a huge problem! The most annoying crap there can be in research is when there's a huge wall of text when you're just trying to look for something specific. I'm very sure the youth does not care about looking through a huge mass of writing to find a few things about the person.

And the problem lies within the fact that young voters lack the information that they need to vote. That's why voters should expand the knowledge, engage civically, and experience how politics functions. I agree that apathy also plays a part of the youth voter insecurity. Though, it should not stop voters from voting.

I'm still trying to figure ways to how America can mobilize youths, but so far I have only resulted to grassroots campaigns and civic education organizations. With these institutions, America can hopefully make voting easier and understandable to youths.

I didn't know young voters HAD to vote.

Young voters don't vote because they don't know what the consequences of who they're voting for is.

Besides, Obama isn't the smartest man in the ****ing planet, it's not the populations fault we can't have a decent president.


I now say we impeach.

We need a republican president, of course not one like that supreme dumbass Bush.

No, youth voters do not have to vote, but America should try to mobilize our votes. Moroever, it does not matter who is the president. The problem of low young voter turnout still exists, has been for the past four decades.

And I used Obama as an example because the election he won had the second highest youth turnout-- but the question becomes where are those voters now when the midterms have passed.

I am not affliated with any political party.

Moreover, may I ask why do you think that America has its problems today. A Republican president will have the advantage of Congress- The House-- but the problems that took over twenty or more years to form and fester-- can those problems be fixed in a mere four years?

[rushyrulz]

Nice quadruple post.
EDIT: nice edit.

tl;dr.

I don't care if a monkey is running against obama in 2012, but I'm definitely not voting for him.

[Cavernio]

I don't like voter apathy, and I choose to vote whenever I can, but I don't see it as a problem but as rather something good. Apathy comes about as a result of good leadership in general. If nothing's gravely amiss, I won't get riled up, and that's good. I see very little difference in my everyday life stem from who I vote for, and my everyday life is pretty good. People in well-off countries are like well taken care of pets, and I believe youth will vote and more people will vote when they feel like there's something wrong. And when that happens, it'll suck because **** hit the fan.

[Vendetta21]

That is only valid logic if voting has an effect on a timetable that is congruent with things going wrong. Apparently the last four years have shown that things can go wrong suddenly, can continue to go wrong, and can unexpectedly go wrong.

Also, if things appear relatively okay to apathetic voters because they are insulated from problems, it can often be the case that by the time you realize there is a big problem coming apathetic voters en masse can be in a frog-in-hot-water situation.

Case in point: the MBS/Sub-prime crisis, the recession with a long-term sustained impact, and the looming economic problems on the horizon.

Just because your particular class in America or your particular area in America is insulated from harm at the moment it doesn't mean that the storm lingering elsewhere isn't going to come through your town, too.

[MrRubix]

The problem is that most people feel helpless in many regards. They know there are economic problems out there, but they can't begin to understand how the mess needs to be fixed, nor how they can fix it. They know there are problems in the future, but they don't know what they should be doing in the present, especially when there are so many divergent opinions on what the best mode of action is.

Ultimately, we're falling into a cesspool and it's difficult to determine who to trust and who we need to listen to and what actions we should take. Most people don't even typically understand what our President does anyway.

[Vendetta21]

The problem is that most people feel helpless in many regards. They know there are economic problems out there, but they can't begin to understand how the mess needs to be fixed, nor how they can fix it. They know there are problems in the future, but they don't know what they should be doing in the present, especially when there are so many divergent opinions on what the best mode of action is.

Yeah this is true. Most proletariat-esque people I know have this weirdly displaced, amorphous, and vague hate for liberals when it seems like what they really hate is corporations. Lol media narratives and red-vs-blue-team mentalities.

[MrRubix]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/2012-contenders-to-bet-against/?hp

Disgusting

[Dokusuke]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/2012-contenders-to-bet-against/?hp

Disgusting

Before I comment on the quote, I want to thank everyone who has posted. Honestly, I wrote this post because I had a representation on the topic the following day. It was my way of ranting, getting the prejudices out the way. I am really happy with the responses I have recieved, truly am.

As for the Republican candidate for the election of 2012--- no offense to those who like Sarah Palin--- but if Palin gets elected as President in 2012. I am moving out of the country.

[krunkykai22]

Sigh...

Impeach Obama... That one made me laugh mainly because I went to the MVA (DMV) in maryland and saw a friggin table outside saying "IMPEACH OBAMA!"

What many people don't understand is just the amount of crap Obama has to go through. Doku, you said it yourself in the OP. He has a lot of things to worry about. Don't get me wrong, as the Leader of your country you HAVE to address EVERY issue. He IS neglecting a lot of them, but he is doing his best.

As of the midterm elections, I was very displeased with how things went about. The republicans should have never won if the Democrats weren't so busy bashing Republicans in their friggin ads either on TV or the Radio or signs everywhere. They were scared they would lose and just that happened. They ****ing lost.

I am a Democrat, and I don't care who hates me or wants to kill me >.> It's my choice. But for the Republicans to gain the HOR (House) it was very disgusting. I believe the health care reform can and WILL help the american people even though it would put us more in debt than we already are. (Which brings me to one statement, ALMOST every country is in debt to another or by themselves. It will be very difficult to even pull outta debt for years to come.)

The fact that the Republicans won house doesn't necessarily mean anything too much. There going to vote against the Health Care bill --> Obama is going to use his Veto against it --> Congress steps in to decide whether Obama's veto is essential ---> More democrats vote over the republicans --> the bill stays. I just watched CNN this morning and basically saw that outline. Mostly all the democrats in Congress/House/Senate will vote for the bill. And they ARE the majority. I don't think we have anything to worry about there for a while or until things change, which they can definitely do.

As for the "youth voters" I am 24 years old. I pay attention to every single election, as I just did with the midterm elections not long ago. I didn't know WHO to vote for because instead of preaching their policies they are bashing one another and it's bull****. I did like some of the republicans speeches, as well as some of the democrats. It's very confusing for the Youth voters to get a full understanding on what is ahead of them. Most of us just don't care to vote. Could you imagine kids getting high/stoned, drunk, tripping on something, or any type of influence and actually go and vote for someone who is completely just ridiculous? Like Palin? Come on now. Our country could be in turmoil if that happened. I'm happy the way the elections happened now. Did you know that during the Obama/McCain election what almost happened? McCain almost won .... By kids that voted out or stupidity in a few states. Pennsylvania being one of them!! That would have been a huge difference in the popular vote and maybe even in the electoral vote. It is sad to see many kids our age not caring about our country's leaders and elections, but I say it's better that way. No use crying over spilt milk, I say we give Obama his next 2 years to see what he can do. He hasn't quite gotten the hang of things yet, and who knows, maybe it will come about soon. I was never an Obama fan, but the man is going through alot. What would you do?

[TC_Halogen]

This is only from what I have heard - I will claim ignorance toward this, and wouldn't mind being corrected.

There is never an agreement about what happens - if the Democratic Party assembles and comes up with an idea that they see fits well, the Republican Party seemingly opposes it, regardless of what may or may not come from it. The inverse is true as well. Now, I completely understand that all of the members within a given party have their own viewpoint and they are assigned to that party because of their viewpoints, but there never seems to be an idea that gets passed unanimously. Does anyone else feel like this failure to get a general idea between both groups causes a problem for us?

[krunkykai22]

AJ, I completely agree. That is the case unfortunately. It just seems that most ideas one side has the other HAS to oppose it instead of being reasonable true adults. But, i suppose that is the way the Government is.....

[Cavernio]

"Case in point: the MBS/Sub-prime crisis, the recession with a long-term sustained impact, and the looming economic problems on the horizon."

I'll pretend that I know what MBS stands for and that you're referring to more economic problems. Controlling the economy to not have recessions isn't exactly easy, and truthfully, I have no idea how much power goverment has over banking policies and interest rates which ultimately control inflation and recession. Besides which, this recession isn't all that bad, likely due to government intervention, which seems like it would have happened in much the same way no matter who was in power.
Recessions happen, its a fact of economies, I hardly believe this to be some sort of crisis.

I didn't say that people were right to not vote, and I didn't say I support not voting. I vote, I think more people should put effort and research into voting appropriately, and I think there's always going to be plenty of reasons to want to choose your government, even among choices which all seem so similar anyways. I'm just saying that I don't see voter apathy as a big problem, and that I totally understand it. If you want government to help see problems and fix them before they happen (like climate change), you really need to have a leader who's really charismatic, who themselves want to build new programs, and who can really pass on that enthusiam for change. Either that or have things be in a terrible state beforehand. Or better yet, have both of those things happen...like for Hitler. He wanted change, the timing was right and he was charismatic, and he somehow convinced millions of people to change their ethical views.

[Vendetta21]

I'll pretend that I know what MBS stands for and that you're referring to more economic problems. Controlling the economy to not have recessions isn't exactly easy, and truthfully, I have no idea how much power goverment has over banking policies and interest rates which ultimately control inflation and recession. Besides which, this recession isn't all that bad, likely due to government intervention, which seems like it would have happened in much the same way no matter who was in power.

Recessions happen, its a fact of economies, I hardly believe this to be some sort of crisis.

This recession is the worst recession in a century and it's going to get worse. Your disagreement is basically my point. There exist alternative ways of doing things that don't produce such profound boom-and-bust cycles.

[Cavernio]

It's far too soon to say whether this is worse than the Great Depression, since that lasted for much longer than our current depression so far. However, on some levels this is definitely not worse than that, like when considering the unemployment rate. In the US it's around 10%. During the Great Depression (which began in 1929, which is still a few years short of 100 years), the unemployment rate rose to around 20%. This is actually much worse than the current 10% rate (although its possible it will go up more, but seeing as we're working so hard towards this not happening, I'm fairly confident things won't get much worse), especially considering that most women weren't included in their unemployment rate as they were housewives not included in the labour force, and so that actually meant 20% of households had basically 0 income.
Programs like welfare, which apparently were adopted by the US after the Great Depression, and unemployment insurance exist now, so that even if someone is unemployed, they can still be active consumers, which will lessen the blow of a depression, as well as the individual impact on people who need that money.
It's also not hard to see that there's not been as great an impact on everyday lives. I've not heard of shantytowns being made from people moving around trying to follow the scent of a job.
On other notes, firstly, we don't vote globally. Although the US economy does effect the rest of the world's economy, the US is clearly not the only country responsible for the current economic times. Secondly, government is not in control over our buying and spending, nor is it even in control of banks. It only intervenes when things go awry and then apparently takes the blame for them. If you want it to have more control over such things, then you better go quite a bit farther left, which isn't going to happen because the US is like the most right-wing country in existence right now, even with Obama.

[virus003]

As for the Republican candidate for the election of 2012--- no offense to those who like Sarah Palin--- but if Palin gets elected as President in 2012. I am moving out of the country.

Agreed, lol


So any republicans here?

[RobertsonaIsBack]

this is "critical thinking" and a specific topic (that of obama and his popularity w/ young votres) is derailed into "SO IS ANY1 HERE A REPBULICAN"

ah, virus003